Wall and Ground Movements Associated with Deep

Excavations Supported by Cast In Situ Wall in Mixed

Ground Conditions
Erin H. Y. Leung1 and Charles W. W. Ng, M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Field monitoring data on lateral wall deflection and ground settlement from 14 deep excavation case histories in Hong Kong
involving cast in situ concrete wall were collected and analyzed. Mixed ground conditions consisted of successive layers of fill, marine
deposit and/or alluvium, and decomposed geomaterials. The measured data were differentiated into two groups based on the standard
penetration test N values of the ground −N ⱕ 30 共Group A兲 and N ⬎ 30 共Group B兲 at half of the excavation depth. The mean values of the
maximum wall deflection 共␦hm兲 and ground settlement 共␦vm兲 in the excavations in Group A are 0.23 and 0.12% of the excavation depth
共H兲, respectively. For the excavations in Group B, the mean value of ␦hm is 0.13% H which is similar to other excavations in predomi-
nantly other stiff soils 共␦hm / H = 0.10– 0.16% 兲, but ␦vm is only 0.02% H which is small when compared to other similar database
共␦hm / H = 0.1– 0.2% 兲. The settlement influence zone of the excavations in both groups reaches a distance of 2.5H, which lies between that
observed in other soft clays and sands 共d = 2H兲 and in other stiff clays 共d = 3H兲. The measured wall deflection and ground settlement are
relatively insensitive to the system stiffness of the support system using cast-in-situ concrete wall.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2007兲133:2共129兲
CE Database subject headings: Databases; Excavation; Stiffness; Walls; Deflection; Hong Kong.

Introduction wall deflection, and ground settlement. However, field monitoring

The performance of deep excavations is governed by the ground
conditions such as soil stiffness and the in situ stress conditions,
the design including the type of support and the stiffness of
the support system, the construction practice such as workman-
ship, and the boundary conditions consisting of the geometry
of the excavation. Some of these factors are difficult to access
or quantify. Thus, it is difficult to consider all the relevant factors
in a detailed analysis of the deformation of deep excavations.
Semiempirical study of the performance of deep excavations is a
viable means to understand the associated deformation. Semi-
empirical studies of deformation associated with deep excavations
worldwide have been conducted by a number of researchers 共Peck
1969; Clough and O’Rourke 1990; Long 2001; Moormann 2004;
Liu et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2005兲. In these studies, data on wall
and ground deformation were often categorized based on the
ground conditions mainly consisting of sedimentary clayey soils
and sands. In each category of ground conditions, the data were
analyzed to study the effects of excavation depth, type of support
and stiffness of the support system on the magnitude of the
1
Formerly, Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Hong Kong
Univ. of Science and Technology, Clearwater Bay, HKSAR.
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Hong Kong Univ. of Science
and Technology, Clearwater Bay, HKSAR.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2007. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on June 1, 2005; approved on May 23, 2006. This paper is
part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, Vol. 133, No. 2, February 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2007/
2-129–143/$25.00.
of multipropped deep excavations in naturally decomposed geo-
materials such as completely decomposed granite 共CDG兲 and
completely decomposed tuff 共CDT兲 are relatively limited and in-
frequently reported in the literature.
In this study, the performance of 14 multipropped deep exca-
vations in mixed ground conditions including fill, marine depos-
its, and decomposed geomaterials 共CDG and CDT兲 in Hong Kong
is investigated. Field monitored data on lateral wall deflection and
ground surface settlement of these 14 deep excavations were col-
lected and analyzed. The magnitude of deformation, the relation-
ship between the lateral wall deflection and the ground surface
settlement, the pattern of ground surface settlement, and the effect
of the stiffness of the support system on lateral wall deflection
and ground surface settlement were studied and compared with
other relevant case histories worldwide. The definitions of the
symbols used in this paper are found in the section, “Notation.”
The parameters are shown in Fig. 1共a兲.
Typical profiles of wall and ground movements of braced ex-
cavation have been discussed by Clough and O’Rourke 共1990兲
and are shown in Fig. 1. In excavations with no lateral support
or insufficient stiffness in the support at the top during the ini-
tial stage of excavation, the wall deforms as a cantilever and
the resulting distribution of ground settlement is triangular
关Fig. 1共b兲兴. As excavation proceeds, the upper part of the wall is
restrained and the wall deforms inward near the excavation level
共deep inward movement兲. The combination of the cantilever and
deep inward movement patterns results in the cumulative move-
ment pattern 关Fig. 1共a兲兴. The distribution of ground settlement is
triangular if cantilever wall movement predominates, while it is
trapezoidal if deep inward wall movement predominates.
In order to study the effects of stiffness of a support system on
lateral wall movement, Clough et al. 共1989兲 proposed the system
stiffness 共Ks兲 and identified relationships between Ks and maxi-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 129

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Typical profiles of wall and ground movement for braced
excavation 共Clough and O’Rourke 1990, ASCE兲: 共a兲 cumulative
movement and definition of parameters used in the study; 共b兲
cantilever movement
mum lateral wall movement for soft to medium clays. The system
stiffness 共Ks兲 is expressed in the following equation:
E wI
Ks = 共1兲
␥ wh 4
with no unit in plane strain, where Ew⫽Young’s modulus of the
wall; h⫽average vertical prop spacing of a multipropped support
system; I⫽second moment of inertia of the wall section; and
␥w⫽unit weight of water.
It can be seen that Ks involves both the wall bending stiffness
共EwI兲 and prop spacing 共h兲, which are the two main factors con-
trolling the stiffness of a support system.
Previous Field Studies of the Magnitude
of Deformation
There are two basic approaches to studying the field performance
of deep excavations. Individual cases of deep excavation with
extensive and comprehensive field monitoring data are studied in
great detail 共Finno et al. 1989; Ng 1998兲 in order to improve
fundamental understanding of the mechanisms involved with
these deep excavations. The other approach is to study data of
deformation collected from a large number of case histories
worldwide 共Peck 1969; Clough and O’Rourke 1990; Long 2001;
Moormann 2004兲 and from local areas 共Wong et al. 1997; Yoo
2001兲. The outcomes of the second approach are to form a data-
base including charts and figures for engineers to carry out their
designs and for numerical modelers to calibrate their models and
model procedures. It is the second approach that is adopted in this
paper.
In an earlier study by Peck 共1969兲, the magnitude of ground
settlement due to excavations supported by temporary braced
sheet pile and soldier pile walls was found to be relatively large.
130 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143
For instance, the upper bound of ground settlement near the wall
was about 1% of the excavation depth for excavations in sand,
stiff clay, and soft clay 共i.e., Category I兲. With advances in the
design and construction of support systems, the magnitude of
ground settlement induced by the excavation is reduced as illus-
trated in later studies in the literature. Recent studies involving a
large number of case histories worldwide 共Clough and O’Rourke
1990; Long 2001; Moormann 2004兲 revealed that the average
values of both the maximum lateral wall deflection and ground
settlement range from 0.1 to 0.3% of the depth of excavation in
stiff soils 共stiff clay, sand, and residual soil兲. A limited number of
studies have investigated the magnitude of deformation associated
with excavations in mixed grounds including decomposed mate-
rials in Singapore and Korea by Wong et al. 共1997兲 and Yoo
共2001兲, respectively. The soil profiles consist of successive layers
of fill, residual soil, and soft to hard rock. The maximum lateral
wall movement and maximum ground settlement of a majority of
the cases were less than 0.2% of the excavation depth. In general,
the magnitudes of wall and ground movements are relatively
small for excavations in stiff soils and decomposed materials.
Previous Studies on the Relationship between
Stiffness of Support System and Movements
Clough et al. 共1989兲 introduced a design chart for estimating
the magnitude of the maximum lateral wall movement based
on the system stiffness 共Ks兲 and the factor of safety against basal
heave 共FOSheave兲 in soft to medium clays. For excavations in
soft to medium clays where the basal stability is a concern
共FOSheave ⬍ 1.5兲, the effect of the stiffness of support system on
the magnitude of wall movement is important. For excavations in
stiff soils where FOSheave is greater than 2.0, the magnitude of
wall movement is smaller and the influence of the stiffness of the
support system is relatively minor.
Addenbrooke et al. 共2000兲 demonstrated via finite-element
analyses that the displacement flexibility number 共⌬兲 can be used
to define wall and ground movements in undrained deep excava-
tions in stiff clay. They suggested that this parameter can be
utilized to derive an economical support system in retaining
wall designs. The results of the finite-element analyses illustrate
a clear relationship between the stiffness of the support system
and movements 共lateral wall deflection, vertical, and horizontal
ground movements兲.
Although it has been suggested in design chart and finite-
element analysis that movements are related to the stiffness of
support system 共Clough et al. 1989; Addenbrooke et al. 2000兲,
databases compiled from a large number of deep excavation case
histories indicate that there is no obvious relationship between the
maximum lateral wall deflection and the stiffness of the support
system 共Long 2001; Moormann 2004兲. It should be noted that as
far as the authors are aware, there is no data reported in the
literature showing the relationship between the maximum ground
settlement and the stiffness of the support system.
Typical Details concerning Deep Excavations
in Hong Kong
Geology and Ground Conditions in Urban Areas
Volcanic and granitic rocks of the Late Mesozoic are the domi-
nant lithologies in Hong Kong, as a result of widespread volcan-
 Table 1. Classification of Rock Material Decomposition Grades 共Adapted from GCO 1988兲
Grade
Descriptive term symbol
Residual soil VI
Completely decomposed V •
Highly decomposed IV
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Moderately decomposed III
Slightly decomposed II
Fresh I •
ism and plutonism during the period 共Sewell et al. 2000兲. The
warm and humid climate in Hong Kong has promoted weathering
processes in these rocks. Weathered profiles are typically a few
meters to several tens of meters in thickness 共Fyfe et al. 2000兲.
They are overlaid with quaternary superficial deposits varying
from thin patches to several tens of meters in thickness. Quater-
nary superficial deposits include locally substantial colluvium and
widespread alluvium. Marine deposits may exist in some areas
lying above the alluvium. In urban areas, a layer of fill, which is
a few meters in thickness lies above the superficial deposits. The
groundwater table is generally high and located a few meters
below the ground surface. Due to the lack of flat land for urban
development, extensive reclamations were carried out especially
along the shoreline of Kowloon Peninsula and the northern part of
Hong Kong Island in the past century 共Fyfe et al. 2000兲.
Six decomposition grades 共refer to Table 1兲 are used for two
commonly found volcanic and granitic materials in Hong Kong
共GCO 1988兲. Geotechnically, the term “rock” refers only to ma-
terial of decomposition Grades I to III with I being fresh rock.
Grades IV, V, and VI material are referred to as “soil.” Saprolites
are equivalent to “rock” of decomposition Grades IV and V 共or,
respectively, called highly decomposed and completely decom-
posed materials兲. The physical properties of Grades IV and V
material are closer to those of soil than rock. The occurrence of
rock of weathering Grade VI, referred to as “residual soil,” which
is uncommon in Hong Kong and is usually found only in thin
layers. Since obtaining high quality samples of granular granitic
and volcanic saprolites from great depths 共more than 20 m兲 is
extremely difficult if not impossible for laboratory testing, the
standard penetration test 共SPT兲 is the most commonly method
adopted in Hong Kong to characterize their geotechnical proper-
ties empirically. Recently it has been found that shear modulus of
granitic saprolites is highly nonlinear even at very small strains.
Based on field measurements of shear modulus of granite sapro-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 131
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143
General characteristics for granitic and volcanic rocks
• Original rock texture completely destroyed
• Can be crumbled by hand and finger pressure into constituent grains
Original rock texture preserved
• Can be crumbled by hand and finger pressure into constituent grains
• Easily indented by point of geological pick
• Slakes when immersed in water
• Completely discolored compared with fresh rock
• Can be broken by hand into smaller pieces
• Makes a dull sound when struck by geological hammer
• Not easily indented by point of geological pick
• Does not slake when immersed in water
• Completely discolored compared with fresh rock
• Cannot usually be broken by hand; easily broken by geological hammer
• Makes a dull or slight ringing sound when struck by geological hammer
• Completely stained throughout
• Not broken easily by geological hammer
• Makes a ringing sound when struck by geological hammer
• Fresh rock colors generally retained but stained near joint surfaces
Not broken easily by geological hammer
• Makes a ringing sound when struck by geological hammer
• No visible signs of decomposition 共i.e., no discoloration兲
lites at very small strains 共Go兲 by compression wave and shear
wave 共P-S兲 velocity logging tests at Kowloon Bay 共Ng et al.
2000兲, it is found generally that
14.4 冉冊
N
2
0.68
ⱕ Go ⱕ 14.4N0.68共MPa兲 共2兲
where N is blow count from SPTs. Other details and more labo-
ratory and field test results are given by Ng et al. 共2000兲, Ng and
Wang 共2001兲, and Wang and Ng 共2005兲. For simplified design
purposes, a wide range of empirical correlation of Young’s modu-
lus with SPT N values such as E = 200 to 3000N 共kPa兲 have been
proposed 共GEO 1996兲. Moreover, empirical relationships of shear
strength parameters 共i.e., effective cohesion, c⬘ and angle of fric-
tion, ␾⬘兲 with SPT N values and fine contents are given by Pun
and Ho 共1996兲. Typically ␾⬘ varies between 33° and 44° and c⬘
changes from 0 to 6 kPa, depending on SPT N values and fine
contents.
Construction Methods
Excavations are commonly carried out in congested areas to in-
crease underground usable spaces in Hong Kong. As construction
space is generally limited and ground movement control is impor-
tant, embedded walls are constructed to support the ground. In
deep excavations that provide underground space, commonly
adopted wall types include diaphragm wall and secant pile wall.
During the construction of diaphragm wall, slurry trenches may
be excavated using a cable-operated grab and the stability of the
trenches is maintained by bentonite which has unit weight typi-
cally varying from 10.5 to 10.8 kN/ m3 in Hong Kong. Obstruc-
tions such as boulders may be encountered during the excavation
of a slurry trench and so chiseling may be required to break loose
the hard material, which may in turn cause additional settlement.
 Based on the results from a comprehensive field monitoring of the
excavation a diaphragm wall panel in Hong Kong 共Ng et al.
1999兲, however, it was found that chiseling at 40 m below ground
in fact did not result in any significant ground movements both
vertically and horizontally.
Walls are usually supported by permanent props at various
levels 共e.g., concrete floor slabs in top-down systems兲 or tempo-
rary props 共e.g., steel struts in both top-down and bottom-up
systems兲. Ground anchors may be used in some instances. The
top-down construction method is often employed with the inten-
tion to minimize ground movements and to speed up construction,
while in some cases the bottom-up method is used. According to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Long 共2001兲, however, the averaged normalized wall deflection
observed in excavations using the top-down method is not obvi-
ously smaller than that using the bottom-up method. On the con-
trary, the induced wall deflection using the top-down method is
slightly higher than that using the bottom-up method.
Installing grout curtain at the toe of the diaphragm wall is a
common practice in Hong Kong to control seepage of ground-
water into an excavation site and hence to limit groundwater
drawdown and ground settlement outside the site. A pumping test
is often carried out to ensure water tightness of diaphragm wall.
Details of the Collected Case Histories
Data from 14 deep excavation case histories in Hong Kong were
collected and analyzed in this study. Tables 2 and 3 summarize
details of the case histories, including wall type, support system,
method of construction, soil profile, location of the groundwater
table, excavation depth and width, wall embedment depth and
stiffness, average support spacing, factors of safety against basal
heave and toe kicking, and maximum lateral wall deflection
and ground settlement. The wall stiffness 共EwI兲 was calculated
from an assumed value of Young’s modulus of an uncracked
concrete section without reinforcement 共Ew = 32 GPa兲 and a sec-
ond moment of inertia 共I兲 calculated from the wall thickness 共t兲
共I = t3 / 12兲. For calculating the factor of safety against basal heave
共FOSbase兲, the method proposed by Terzaghi 共1943兲 was adopted
and undrained shear strength 共cu兲 of soil was obtained by corre-
lating it to SPT N value by cu = 4.4N 共Stroud 1988兲. The factor of
safety against toe kicking was calculated as the ratio of restoring
moment to overturning moment of a free-ended span below the
lowest strut 共GCO 1990兲. The collected data on the measured
maximum lateral wall deflection and ground settlement are due
solely to the main excavation activities. This ensures consistent
comparisons of ground deformations and wall deflections in the
case histories collected in Hong Kong and in the case histories
reported in the literature. Only the wall deflection and ground
settlement measured at sections away from the corner of an ex-
cavation are considered in this paper and thus the deflections and
ground settlements can be taken under the plane strain conditions.
It is generally recognized that ground settlement measurement is
not very accurate in practice. Based on local experience, the po-
tential error in settlement measurement may be up to ±5 mm. The
groundwater drawdown outside the site was minimal in all the
reported cases.
Layered soil profiles were encountered in all the case histories
in Hong Kong as summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The soil profiles
generally include layers of fill, marine deposits and/or alluvium,
and completely decomposed 共Grade V; GCO 1988兲 granite or
volcanic rock. At greater depths, the ground consists of materials
decomposed to lesser extents and fresh rock. The decomposed
132 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143
materials in the soil profiles of most of the cases are those weath-
ered from granitic rocks because these are the materials mostly
encountered in the urban area. Only two case histories reported
are in the presence of materials derived from volcanic rocks 共i.e.,
Luen Wo Hui and TKO Station兲.
All of the 14 reported case histories, except for one case where
secant pile wall was used 共i.e., Argyle Station兲, utilized dia-
phragm wall as the retaining wall. The top-down construction
method was employed in all excavations, except for two cases
where the bottom-up method and steel strut support system were
employed 共i.e., TKO Station, TWW Station兲. All the 12 top-down
cases collected in this study followed the conventional top-down
sequence where the first basement slab or a ground floor slab was
cast first before an excavation was carried out to a lower base-
ment level. The propping sequence among the cases was similar.
Based on the measured SPT N values at about half depth
of each excavation 共see Fig. 2兲, the case histories are differenti-
ated and separated in two groups, i.e., for N ⱕ 30 共Group A兲 and
N ⬎ 30 共Group B兲. The normalized depth shown in Fig. 2 refers
to depth normalized by the depth of excavation of each corre-
sponding site. The SPT N values generally increase with an in-
crease in depth for all the sites. For the sites classified in Group A
关Fig. 2共a兲兴, the upper part of the ground consists of relatively soft
materials; and at half of the depth of excavations 共y / H = 0.5兲, the
SPT N value is less than 30. It should be noted that the case
histories in this group involve excavation sites mainly in re-
claimed lands. For the sites in Group B 关Fig. 2共b兲兴, the SPT N
values at y / H = 0.5 is larger than 30. The SPT N values at the
upper strata of the grounds are generally larger than those of the
sites in Group A.
Relationship between Deformation
and Excavation Depth
Maximum Lateral Wall Deflection and Location
of the Maximum Deflection
Fig. 3共a兲 shows the relationship between the maximum lateral
wall deflection 共␦hm兲 共Table 2兲 and the depth of the excavation
共H兲 for the sites in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. A trend of an
increasing magnitude of ␦hm with increasing H is observed. Two
cases show exceptionally small wall deflection 共CSW Govern-
ment Office and Sheung Wan Crossover兲. The small lateral wall
deflection in the case of CSW Government Office is due to
the enhanced soil stiffness by grouting to minimize deformation
of a nearby railway tunnel 共Chu et al. 2001兲. The exceptionally
small wall deflection in the case of Sheung Wan Crossover is
possibly due to the high stiffness of the support system associated
with its close prop spacing and large thickness of concrete slabs
共1.2–1.5 m兲 which increases the prop stiffness 共Table 2; Fraser
1992兲. Disregarding the two cases, the values of ␦hm range from
0.19 to 0.29% H with a mean value of 0.23% H. There appears to
be no discernible difference in the magnitude of wall deflection
between cases using bottom-up 共TKO Station and TWW Station兲
and top-down construction methods. Table 4 compares the nor-
malized maximum wall deflection 共␦hm / H兲 observed in world-
wide case histories. The data of Group A show similar magnitude
of ␦hm / H compared to that observed in worldwide case histories
in stiff clays, residual soils, and sands 共Clough and O’Rourke
1990兲 and in significant thickness of soft soils with stiff material
at dredge level 共Long 2001兲, where ␦hm / H ⬇ 0.2%. Less wall
movement is observed in the study conducted by Wong et al.
 Table 2. Details of Deep Excavations Retained by Diaphragm Wall—Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲
Location Location
of of ␦hm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

groundwater below
table ground
共depth surface
below Average Wall normalized by
ground Excavation Excavation Embedment prop stiffness, excavation
Support Construction Soil surface, depth, width, depth spacing, h E wI ␦hm ␦ vm depth,
Site system method profilea m兲 H 共m兲 W 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共k Nm2 / m兲 FOSbaseb FOStoec 共mm兲 共mm兲 y/H Reference
Chater Multiprop Top Fill 共8 m兲 2.5 19 17 10 6.5 4.6⫻ 106 ⬎3 1.5 40 24 0.87 Davies and
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 133

Station down MD 共7 m兲 Henkel

CDG 共25 m兲 共1980兲
Cheung Multiprop Top Fill 共5 m兲 1.5 14 61 21 4.1 4.6⫻ 106 ⬎3 4.3 15 3 0.67 Chu et al.
Sha Wan down MD 共8 m兲 共2001兲
共CSW兲 AL 共2 m兲
Government CDG 共45 m兲
Office
Dragon Multiprop Top Lui and Yau
Centre: down 共1995兲
I3 Fill 共4 m兲 1.5 27 107 32.5 4.9 4.6⫻ 106 2.7 2.9 63 30 0.91
MD 共7 m兲
CDG 共40 m兲
I4 Fill 共5 m兲 1.5 27 107 32.5 4.9 4.6⫻ 106 2.7 2.9 64 30 0.63
MD 共4 m兲
CDG 共49 m兲
I6 Fill 共5 m兲 1.5 27 67 32.5 4.9 4.6⫻ 106 2.7 2.9 79 24 0.61
MD 共6 m兲
CDG 共54 m兲
Hong Kong Multiprop Top Filld 共22 m兲 4 23 N/A 37 4.6 9 ⫻ 106 N/A 3.8 50 N/A 1.00 Chan 共2003兲
共HK兲 down AL 共8 m兲
Station CDG 共30 m兲
HSBC Multiprop Top Humpheson
Headquarters: down et al.
共1986兲
Queen’s Fill 共5 m兲 3 16 68 10 5.3 2.7⫻ 106 ⬎3 1.9 30 10 0.64
Road CDG 共20 m兲
Central
Des Voeux Fill 共6 m兲 2 18 68 7 4.5 2.7⫻ 106 ⬎3 1.2 42 20 0.50
Road MD 共2 m兲
CDG 共15 m兲
Sheung Multiprop Top Fill 共8 m兲 1 32 23 12 2.9 4.6⫻ 106 ⬎3 1.2 20 N/A 0.75 Fraser
Wan down MD 共2 m兲 共1992兲
Crossover AL 共6 m兲
CDG 共25 m兲

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143

 Table 2. 共Continued.兲
134 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

Location Location
of of ␦hm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

groundwater below
table ground
共depth surface
below Average Wall normalized by
ground Excavation Excavation Embedment prop stiffness, excavation
Support Construction Soil surface, depth, width, depth spacing, h E wI ␦hm ␦ vm depth,
Site system method profilea m兲 H 共m兲 W 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共k Nm2 / m兲 FOSbaseb FOStoec 共mm兲 共mm兲 y/H Reference
Site Q Multiprop Top Fill 共6 m兲 3 18.6 90 30 4.6 4.6⫻ 106 2.0 N/A N/A 16 N/A Chan et al.
down AL 共10 m兲 30 2.0 14 共1998兲
CDG 共24 m兲
Tseung Temporary Bottom Filld 共15 m兲 3 14 22 41 3.5 4.6⫻ 106 1.1 4.9 40 N/A 1.07 Pan et al.
Kwan O props up MD 共8 m兲 共2001兲
共TKO兲 AL 共15 m兲
Station CDV共4 m兲
Tsuen Wan Temporary Bottom Filld 共15 m兲 3 18 42 8 9 4.6⫻ 106 1.9 1.3 35 40 0.61 Pickles et
West 共TWW兲 props up MD al. 共2003兲
Station 共2 – 5 m兲
AL 共2 – 5 m兲
CDG
共2 – 35 m兲
a
MD⫽marine deposit, AL⫽alluvium, CDG⫽completely decomposed granite, CDV⫽completely decomposed volcanic.
b
Factor of safety against basal heave.
c
Factor of safety against toe kicking.
d
Recent reclamation fill.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143

 Table 3. Details of Deep Excavations Retained by Diaphragm Wall and Secant Pile Wall–Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲
Location
of ␦hm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

below
Location of ground
groundwater surface
table 共depth Average Wall normalized
below Excavation Excavation Embedment prop stiffness, by
Support Construction Soil ground depth, width, depth spacing, E wI ␦hm ␦vm excavation
Site system method profilea surface, m兲 H 共m兲 W 共m兲 共m兲 h 共m兲 共kNm2 / m兲 FOSbaseb FOStoec 共mm兲 共mm兲 depth, y / H Reference
Argyle Multiprop Top Fill 共5 m兲 Near 25 23 7 3.6 3.5⫻ 106 ⬎3 1.2 43 N/A 0.52 Morton et al.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 135

Stationd down MD 共10 m兲 ground 共1980兲

CDG 共10–30 m兲 surface
22 0.68
31 0.76
33 0.52
32 0.52
Festival Anchor and Top Fill 共2 m兲 11 32 85 4 4.6 4.6⫻ 106 ⬎3 1.7 45.5 8 0 Wang
Walk permanent down AL 共2 m兲 共2000兲
prop CDG 共8 m兲
HDG 共20 m兲
Luen Multiprop Top Leung
Wo Hui: down 共2005兲
IN2 Fill 共3 m兲 4 17.6 153 23.5 5.9 4.6⫻ 106 ⬎3 3.4 24.5 6 0.80
AL 共7 m兲
CDV 共31.5 m兲
IN8 Fill 共3 m兲 4 16.9 75 19.2 4.2 4.6⫻ 106 ⬎3 3.2 33 6 0.86
AL 共7 m兲
CDV 共38 m兲
IN9 Fill 共1.6 m兲 4 16.9 75 22.2 4.2 4.6⫻ 106 ⬎3 3.5 19.9 6 0.89
AL 共9.4 m兲
CDV 共28.6 m兲
IN16 Fill 共3 m兲 4 16.9 75 27.2 4.2 4.6⫻ 106 ⬎3 3.9 19.2 6 0.68
AL 共4 m兲
CDV 共35 m兲
Site P Multiprop Top Fill 共2 m兲 2 13.6 38 0 3.4 4.6⫻ 106 N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Chan et al.
down CDG 共10 m兲 共1998兲
11 5
Wong Tai Sin Multiprop Top Fill 共2 m兲 Near 18.7 22.2 8.3 4.7 2.1⫻ 106 ⬎3 1.5 28 N/A 0.96 Chan et al.
共WTS兲 down AL 共5 m兲 ground 共1998兲
Station CDG 共⬎20 m兲 surface
⬎3 1.5 20 0.96
a
MD⫽marine deposit, AL⫽alluvium, CDG⫽completely decomposed granite, CDV⫽completely decomposed volcanic.
b
Factor of safety against basal heave.
c
Factor of safety against toe kicking.
d
Retained by secant pile wall.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. SPT N profile for sites in 共a兲 Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲; 共b兲 Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲

共1997兲, where ␦hm / H is about 0.15% in excavations in significant

thickness of soft soils overlying decomposed rock and supported
by props preloaded to 30 to 70% of the design load.
Fig. 3共b兲 shows the relationship between ␦hm and H for the
cases in Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. The magnitude of ␦hm
increases with increasing values of H. The values of ␦hm range
from 0.09 to 0.20% H with a mean value of 0.13% H, which are
smaller than that observed in the cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at
y / H = 0.5兲. The magnitude of wall deformation is similar to that
of excavations in predominantly stiff soils 共Wong et al. 1997;
Long 2001兲 共Table 4兲. The maximum wall deflection in excava-
tions in stiff clays, residual soils, and sands suggested in the study
by Clough and O’Rourke 共1990兲 共␦hm = 0.2% H兲 forms the upper
bound of the data in this study 关Fig. 3共b兲兴. The data of Group B
show larger wall deflection compared with that observed in the
study of Yoo 共2001兲 where excavations in stiff ground profile
with one-third of the excavation depth comprises hard rock are
studied.
In Hong Kong, 13 out of 14 case histories reported in this
study have shown similar types of wall deformation pattern as
illustrated in Fig. 1共a兲, even though a large portion of the dia-
phragm wall is embedded in hard stratum. The normalized loca-
tion of measured maximum wall deflection by excavation depth
共␦hm / H兲 for each case history collected is summarized in Tables 2
and 3 for nine and five excavations in Groups A and B, respec-
tively. The measured ranges of ␦hm / H vary from 0.61 to 1.07 and
0.52 to 0.96 for cases in Groups A and B, respectively, except the
excavation at Festival Walk at which a cantilever mode of wall
deflection was observed. It can be seen from the two tables that
13 out of 14 case histories of multipropped excavations in Hong
Kong have shown similar types of wall movement pattern as il-
lustrated in Fig. 1共a兲, even though in some cases a large portion of
the diaphragm wall is embedded in hard stratum. The observa-
tions made in Hong Kong are consistent with those reported
worldwide 共Ng 1998; Yoo 2001兲. On the other hand, based on
back-analyzed results at Festival Walk, it is believed that the ob-
served cantilever mode of wall deformation near the top was
likely caused by insufficient support stiffness provided during the Fig. 3. Maximum lateral wall deflection versus excavation depth: 共a兲
early stages of excavation 共Sun 1999兲. Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲; 共b兲 Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲

136 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143

 Table 4. Comparison of Wall and Ground Movements Observed in Worldwide Case Histories
Support system/ ␦hm / H ␦vm / H
Study Ground conditions construction method 共%兲 共%兲
Clough and Stiff clays, residual soils and sands Various including soldier pile, 0.2 0.15
O’Rourke sheetpile and diaphragm walls
共1990兲
Wong et al. Decomposed rock overlaid with soft Contiguous bored pile wall and ⬃0.15 ⬃0.1
共1997兲 deposits of thickness of 0.6–0.9H diaphragm wall with preloaded props
Decomposed rock overlaid with soft ⬃0.1 ⬃0.1
deposits of thickness ⬍0.6H
Long 共2001兲 Stiff or medium dense soils overlaid Top down 0.21 0.39
with soft soils of thickness ⬎0.6H
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Stiff or medium dense soils overlaid 0.16 0.2

with soft soils of thickness ⬍0.6H
Yoo 共2001兲 Fill overlying residual soils, soft Diaphragm wall 0.05 N/A
and hard rocks 共Thickness of
hard rock ⬇0.3H兲
This study Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲 Diaphragm wall 共all cases兲; 0.23 0.12
Top down 共seven cases兲,
Bottom up 共two cases兲
Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲 Diaphragm wall 共four cases兲, 0.13 0.02
Secant pile wall 共one case兲
Top down 共all cases兲

Maximum Ground Surface Settlement

Fig. 4共a兲 shows the relationship between the maximum ground
surface settlement 共␦vm兲 共Table 2兲 and the depth of excavation 共H兲
for the cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. The magnitude
of ␦vm generally increases with an increasing value of H. Except
the case of CSW Government Office, the maximum ground sur-
face settlement ranges from 0.06 to 0.22% H with a mean value
of 0.12% H. The exceptionally small ground settlement in the
case of CSW Government Office is due to the grout treatment as
discussed previously. The case of TWW Station shows relatively
large ground settlement possibly due to the continuation of
consolidation settlement of the newly reclaimed land. The
magnitude of maximum ground settlement is similar to that
observed in other case histories involving stiff clays, residual
soils, and sands 共Clough and O’Rourke 1990兲 and in significant
soft soils overlying decomposed rock 共Wong et al. 1997兲
共Table 4兲, which is in the range of 0.1 to 0.15% H. The database
for maximum ground settlement of top-down systems in stiff or
medium dense soils overlaid with soft soils of thickness greater
than 0.6H 共Long 2001兲, however, shows larger ground settlement
共␦vm / H = 0.39% 兲.
Fig. 4共b兲 shows the relationship between ␦vm and H for the
cases in Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. The value of ␦vm varies
from 0.01 to 0.04% H. The average value of ␦vm is 0.02% H,
which is small compared with that observed in the cases in Group
A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. Stiffer ground profile as suggested in the
higher SPT N values in the cases in Group B 共Fig. 2兲 contributed
to the small ground settlement. The magnitude of ␦vm is small
compared with the magnitude suggested in worldwide case histo-
ries where ␦vm varies from 0.1 to 0.2% H 共Table 4; Clough and
O’Rourke 1990; Wong et al. 1997; Long 2001兲.

Relationship between Maximum Lateral Wall Deflection

and Ground Surface Settlement
Fig. 5共a兲 shows the relationship between the maximum lateral Fig. 4. Maximum ground settlement versus excavation depth: 共a兲
wall deflection 共␦hm兲 and the maximum ground surface settlement Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲; 共b兲 Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 137

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Maximum ground settlement 共␦vm / H兲 versus maximum
lateral wall deflection 共␦hm / H兲: 共a兲 Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲; 共b兲
Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲
共␦vm兲 for the cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. The case of
TWW Station shows large ground settlement 共␦vm = 1.14␦hm兲
due to consolidation settlement of the newly reclaimed land,
while the case of CSW Government Office shows small ground
settlement 共␦vm = 0.20␦hm兲 due to increased soil stiffness by grout
treatment. Excluding the two cases, the value of ␦vm is on average
0.45 times the value of ␦hm. In the cases in Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at
y / H = 0.5兲 关Fig. 5共b兲兴, the magnitude of ground settlement relative
to the magnitude of wall deflection is smaller than that observed
in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. The upper and lower bound
values of ␦vm are 0.18␦hm and 0.09␦hm, respectively, with an av-
erage value of 0.13␦hm. The data shown in Figs. 5共a and b兲
show a smaller ratio of ground settlement to wall deflection
compared to the observations in excavations in soft clays. Data-
base of wall and ground movements associated with deep exca-
vations in soft clays supported by various wall types 共Mana and
Clough 1981; Ou et al. 1993, and Hsieh and Ou 1998兲 show that
␦vm lies in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 times ␦hm. Moormann 共2004兲
shows that ␦vm generally varies from 0.5 to 2.0 times ␦hm for
excavations in soft ground supported by various wall types and
support systems. As far as the authors are aware, other relation-
ships between the maximum wall deflection and the maximum
ground settlement in other ground conditions are not available in
the literature for comparisons.
138 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143
Fig. 6. Distribution of ground surface settlement normalized by
depth of excavation: 共a兲 Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲; 共b兲 Group B
共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲
Distribution of Ground Surface Settlement
Fig. 6共a兲 shows the distribution of normalized ground surface
settlement for the cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. The
normalized ground settlement 共␦vm / H兲 is plotted against the dis-
tance from excavation normalized by the excavation depth 共d / H兲.
The data of the distribution of ground settlement is not available
for the cases of CSW Government Office and Site Q. The distri-
bution of ground settlement generally extends to a distance of 1.4
to 2.5 times the depth of excavation from the diaphragm wall. The
maximum ground surface settlement is less than 0.15% H except
in the case of TWW Station. The exceptionally large ground
settlement in the case of TWW Station is possibly due to the
consolidation settlement of the newly reclaimed land. A triangular
bound with maximum ground surface settlement of 0.25% H
and settlement influence zone of 2.5 times the depth of excavation
is proposed for excavations supported by the diaphragm wall in
reclaimed land involving fill and marine deposits overlying de-
composed materials. The greatest variation in ground settlement
occurs at a distance of 0.2 to 1.5H. The maximum angular distor-
tion varies from 1:500 to 1:1000. Fig. 6共b兲 shows the distribution
of normalized ground surface settlement for the cases in Group B
共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. Much smaller ground settlement was mea-
sured in this group of cases. Based on the limited data, a triangu-
lar bound with ␦vm = 0.05% H and a settlement influence zone of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Ground settlement profiles normalized by maximum ground
settlement of sites in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲
2.5H is proposed. The maximum angular distortion is smaller
than 1:1000 in all the cases.
Peck 共1969兲 proposed zones of the distribution of ground
settlement associated with excavations supported by temporary
braced sheet pile and soldier pile walls in three different ground
conditions 关refer to the inset in Figs. 6共a and b兲兴. The smallest
ground settlement is associated with excavations in sand and
soft to hard clay 共Zone I: ␦vm / H ⬍ 1%兲, while larger settlement
is observed in excavations in soft to very soft clay 共Zone II:
1 % ⬍ ␦vm / H ⬍ 2% and III: ␦vm / H ⬎ 2%兲. The case histories in-
vestigated in this study, which involve a relatively stiff sup-
port system, show much smaller ground settlement 关Fig. 6共a兲:
␦vm / H ⬍ 0.25%; Fig. 6共b兲: ␦vm / H ⬍ 0.05%兴. Figs. 6共a and b兲
also show the triangular bounds on the distribution of settlement
proposed by Clough and O’Rourke 共1990兲 for excavations in sand
and stiff to very hard clay. The excavation cases in Hong Kong
show smaller ground surface settlement compared with the trian-
gular bounds proposed by Clough and O’Rourke 共1990兲. The
settlement influence zone for the data shown in the figure lies
between the settlement influence zone proposed for sand and stiff
clay.
Fig. 7 shows the distribution of ground settlement for the cases
in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲 with ground settlement data
normalized by the maximum ground settlement 共␦v / ␦vm兲 to illus-
trate the shape of ground surface settlement profiles. The ground
settlement near the wall face varies from 0.5␦vm to 1.0␦vm. The
location of the maximum ground settlement is close to the dia-
phragm wall and is in general within a distance of 0.5H away
from the wall. The extent of ground surface settlement reaches a
distance of 1.4 to 2.5H. The shape of ground settlement distribu-
tion is related to the modes of wall deformations as illustrated in
Fig. 1. The location of maximum wall and ground movements,
which indicates the pattern of wall and ground movements, of
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 139
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143
Fig. 8. Normalized maximum lateral wall deflection 共␦hm / H兲 versus
system stiffness 共Ks兲: 共a兲 Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲; 共b兲 Group B
共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲
each case is shown in Fig. 7. Unlike multipropped excavation in
soft clay where deep-seated movements predominate 关␦hm at
y / H ⬇ 1 and ␦vm at d / H ⬇ 0.5 共Hsieh and Ou 1998兲兴, the maxi-
mum wall deflection observed in the cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at
y / H = 0.5兲 locates at a depth above the final excavation level 共␦hm
at y / H = 0.5– 0.9兲. Stiffer materials 共for instance CDG with SPT
N ⬎ 50兲 were encountered when excavation depth approaches the
final excavation level 共y / H = 1兲 关Fig. 2共a兲; except for the cases of
HSBC Headquarters 共Des Voeux Road兲 and TWW Station兴.
Settlement troughs closer to the wall 关d / H ⬍ 0.5, except for
HSBC Headquarters 共Des Voeux Road兲兴 are associated with shal-
lower locations of maximum wall deflection. An upper bound of
ground surface settlement distribution is proposed. The settlement
influence zone extends to 2.5H, which is more extensive than that
observed in soft clay and sand 共2H兲 but less extensive compared
with excavations in stiff clay 共3H兲. It should be noted that the
proposed bound on the shape of settlement distribution resembles
the trapezoidal bound on settlement proposed by Clough and
O’Rourke 共1990兲 for excavations in soft to medium clay. How-
ever, the magnitude of ground settlement 共␦vm ⬍ 0.25% H as
shown in Fig. 6兲 is much smaller than that associated with exca-
vations in soft clay 关␦vm reaches 2 % H as reported by Clough and
O’Rourke 共1990兲兴.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Normalized maximum ground settlement 共␦vm / H兲 versus
system stiffness 共Ks兲: 共a兲 Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲; 共b兲 Group B
共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲
Effects of Stiffness of Support System „Ks…
Maximum Lateral Wall Deflection
Following on the approach proposed by Clough et al. 共1989兲,
Fig. 8共a兲 shows the relationship between normalized maximum
lateral wall deflection 共␦hm / H兲 and system stiffness 共Ks兲 for the
cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. The value of Ks varies
from 70 to 6,600 among these cases in Hong Kong. As all exca-
vations adopted cast in situ concrete walls, the bending stiffness
of the wall 共EwI兲 is similar. The average prop spacing is also
similar among the cases 共i.e., h = 3.4– 6 m in seven out of nine
cases; Table 2兲, which result in a relatively small variation of Ks.
However, for a given Ks, there is a relatively wide scatter in
␦hm / H values. In other words, there is no strong correlation be-
tween measured ␦hm / H and Ks values. In the figure, the design
curves 关in terms of basal heave 共FOSbase兲兴 obtained from excava-
tions in soft to medium clays as proposed by Clough et al. 共1989兲
are also included for comparisons. The calculated value of
FOSbase of each individual case in Hong Kong is provided in the
figure. It can be seen that measured wall deflection generally in-
creases with decreasing FOSbase and the measured data do not
140 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143
seem to correspond very well with the design curves. This may be
attributed to different soil types and the mixed ground conditions
in Hong Kong.
Similar to the cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲,
measured ␦hm / H values in Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲 are
shown in Fig. 8共b兲. It should be noted that all these collected
cases in this group involve also cast in situ concrete wall with
similar wall stiffness 共EwI兲 and the average prop spacing is simi-
lar 共h = 3.4– 6 m in all cases; Table 3兲. As expected, there is a
variation in system stiffness among these cases 共i.e., Ks varies
from 400 to 2,200兲 and the value of FOSbase is larger than 3 in all
these excavations, revealing strong and stiffness ground condi-
tions. There is almost no correlation between measured ␦hm / H
and Ks values.
Wall movements being relatively independent of system
stiffness were also observed and reported by Long 共2001兲 and
Moormann 共2004兲 for excavations in various ground conditions.
The scatter in measurements suggests that the effect of wall
stiffness and support spacing on wall deformation is relatively
minor in stiff soils 共as compared with soft clays兲 if the support
system is adequate in maintaining small wall deformations
共␦hm / H ⬍ 0.5% 兲. Finite-element analysis assuming elastic soil be-
havior 共Clough and O’Rourke 1990兲 has shown that wall stiffness
and support spacing have only a small influence on wall move-
ments associated with excavations in stiff soils. The analysis also
suggests that soil stiffness has a more significant effect on the
computed movements. Prop stiffness and propping sequence, be-
sides soil stiffness, are among the important factors affecting wall
movement. For instance, in addition to the close support spacing
关high Ks value; Fig. 8共a兲兴 in the case of Sheung Wan Crossover,
the thick concrete slabs 共for accommodation of plant rooms兲 with
thickness varying from 1.2 to 1.5 m provide a high prop stiffness
which results in a particularly small wall movement. It should be
noted that all the top-down cases collected in this study followed
the conventional top-down sequence where the first basement slab
or a ground floor slab was cast first before an excavation was
carried out to a lower basement level. Thus, the propping se-
quence among the cases was similar. Based on the data presented
in this paper, there was no obvious difference in wall movement
between the case histories involved in the top-down and
bottom-up methods.
Maximum Ground Surface Settlement
Fig. 9共a兲 shows the normalized maximum ground surface settle-
ment 共␦vm / H兲 plotted against the system stiffness 共Ks兲 for the
cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. The relatively large
ground settlement in the case of TWW Station is likely due to
the consolidation settlement of the newly reclaimed land. The
relatively flexible support system 共small value of Ks兲 may not
be a contributing factor to the large ground settlement as the
case did not show large wall movement due to a low value of Ks
关Fig. 8共a兲兴. The small ground settlement in the case of CSW
Government Office is due to the enhanced stiffness of the grout
treated ground as discussed before. Apart from those special
cases, there is little dependence of ␦vm / H on Ks. In the cases
in Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲 关Fig. 9共b兲兴, ground settlement
data is limited and no relationship between ␦vm / H and Ks can be
observed.
As far as the writers are aware, there is no field data showing
the relationship between the magnitude of maximum ground
settlement and the stiffness of support system in the literature.
Clough and O’Rourke 共1990兲 suggested that the design curves for
 obtaining the maximum lateral wall movement for soft to medium
clays can also be used to obtain maximum ground settlement as
the magnitudes of maximum wall and ground movements are
similar. Their design curves are superimposed on Figs. 9共a and b兲
for comparisons. The ground settlement of the collected cases is
smaller than that suggested by the design curves. It is noted that
the magnitude of ground settlement is smaller than the magnitude
of wall deflection as observed in this study 共Figs. 3 and 4兲 and in
other studies involving stiff clays, residual soils and sands
共Clough and O’Rourke 1990兲 and predominantly stiff soils 共Long
2001兲.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Discussion
The observed maximum lateral wall deflection and ground settle-
ment in the cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲 are generally
consistent with those observed worldwide involving similar
ground conditions 共e.g., residual soils and soft soils of signifi-
cant thickness overlying stiff soils兲 and construction methods
关Figs. 3共a兲 and 4共a兲兴. In the cases in Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at
y / H = 0.5兲, the observed wall deflection is consistent with
that observed worldwide involving predominantly stiff soils
关Fig. 3共b兲兴 while the observed ground settlement appears to be
smaller 关Fig. 4共b兲兴. The amount of ground settlement data is
limited in this group of excavation cases. More data is required to
confirm the magnitude of ground settlement associated with ex-
cavations in such ground condition.
Control of ground settlement is a critical issue in excavation
works. There are stringent limits on the magnitude of ground
settlement induced, but appear not on the lateral wall deflection,
by the authorities in Hong Kong. For instance, excavations above
or adjacent to underground railway systems cannot induce differ-
ential and total movements of more than 1 in 1,000 and 20 mm,
respectively 共Buildings Department 2004兲. Apart from this special
case, the acceptable ground settlement is considered on a case-
by-case basis depending on the presence of sensitive structures
and utilities adjacent to the excavation. Installing grout curtain at
the toe of diaphragm wall is a normal practice to control seepage
of groundwater into the site and hence groundwater drawdown
and ground settlement outside the site. A pumping test is often
carried out to ensure the water tightness of a diaphragm wall.
Under the tight geotechnical control of deep excavations in Hong
Kong, the probability of failure including collapse or excessive
displacement has been only 1.4 per 1,000 excavations in the past
15 years 共GEO 2002兲.
Summary and Conclusions
Data on lateral wall deflection and ground settlement from 14
deep excavation case histories in mixed ground conditions in
Hong Kong were collected and analyzed. The mixed ground
conditions of all the collected cases consisted of successive layers
of fill, marine deposit and/or alluvium, and decomposed granitic
or volcanic rocks. All of the excavations, except one case where
secant pile wall was used, were supported by diaphragm wall.
Twelve out of 14 cases adopted the top-down construction
method, while the other two cases adopted the bottom-up
construction method. The data of deformation were differen-
tiated into two groups based on the SPT N values of the ground
−N ⱕ 30 共Group A兲 and N ⬎ 30 共Group B兲 at half of the excava-
tion depth. This study investigates the magnitude of the maximum
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 141
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143
lateral wall deflection and the ground surface settlement, the re-
lationship between the maximum lateral wall deflection and the
ground surface settlement, the distribution of the ground surface
settlement, and the influence of the stiffness of the support system
on deformation. Based on the field observations and interpreta-
tions, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. In the cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲, the mea-
sured maximum lateral wall deflection ranges from 0.19 to
0.29% H with a mean value of 0.23% H. The magnitude
of maximum lateral wall deflection is similar to other ex-
cavations in stiff clays, residual soils and sands 共Clough
and O’Rourke 1990兲 and in significant thickness of soft
soils with stiff material at dredge level 共Long 2001兲
where ␦hm / H ⬇ 0.2%. In the cases in Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at
y / H = 0.5兲, the measured maximum lateral wall deflection is
smaller than that observed in the cases in Group A. The
measured maximum lateral wall deflection ranges from 0.09
to 0.20% H with a mean value of 0.13% H. The result is
again similar to that observed in excavations involving pre-
dominantly stiff soils 共␦hm / H = 0.1– 0.16%; Wong et al. 1997;
Long 2001兲. As far as construction method is concerned,
there appears to be no discernible difference in the magni-
tude of wall deflection between cases using bottom-up and
top-down construction methods based on the limited data.
2. The measured maximum ground surface settlement ranges
from 0.06 to 0.22% H with a mean value of 0.12% H for the
cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲. The magnitude of
ground settlement is similar to that observed in worldwide
case histories involving stiff clays, residual soils and sands
共Clough and O’Rourke 1990兲, and soft soils of significant
thickness overlying decomposed rock 共Wong et al. 1997兲
where ␦vm / H = 0.1– 0.15%. In the cases in Group B 共N ⬎ 30
at y / H = 0.5兲, smaller ground surface settlement is observed.
The measured maximum ground surface settlement varies
from 0.01 to 0.04%, with an average value of 0.02% H. The
limited data seems to suggest that the ground settlement is
smaller than that of other excavations predominantly stiff
soils, but more data is required to confirm the results.
3. In the cases in Group A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲, the ratio of the
maximum ground surface settlement 共␦vm兲 to the maximum
lateral wall deflection 共␦hm兲 varies from 0.2 to 1.2, with an
average of 0.5. The cases in Group B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲
show an average value of ␦vm / ␦hm = 0.13 with upper and
lower bound values of ␦vm / ␦hm = 0.18 and 0.09, respectively.
The observed ratio of ground surface settlement to wall de-
flection is smaller than that in excavations in soft clay.
4. The settlement influence zone in the cases in both Groups A
共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲 and B 共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲 reaches a
distance of 2.5 times the excavation depth behind the wall,
which lies between that observed in soft clay and sand
共d = 2H兲 and in stiff clay 共d = 3H兲. In the cases in Group A,
the maximum angular distortion occurs at a distance within
1.5H from the excavation, with values varying from 1:500 to
1:1,000. The maximum angular distortion is less than 1:1,000
in the cases in Group B.
5. The measured wall deflection and ground settlement of the
collected cases in both Groups A 共N ⱕ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲 and B
共N ⬎ 30 at y / H = 0.5兲 are relatively independent of system
stiffness. All the collected cases in this study involve cast
in situ concrete wall with similar wall stiffness 共EwI兲 and
the average prop spacing in the majority of cases is similar
共h = 3.4– 6 m in 12 out of 14 cases兲, which result in similar
value of system stiffness. It has to be noted that the top-down
 construction method was employed in 12 out of 14 cases and
the prop stiffness and propping sequence are similar among
the cases. Based on these limited data, the wall deflection is
similar among the cases using the top-down and bottom-up
construction methods.
Acknowledgments
The writers acknowledge financial support from research Grants
No. DAG04/05.EG31 and RGC No. 618006 provided by the
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and the Re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
search Grants Council of HKSAR, respectively.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
c⬘ ⫽ effective cohesion;
d ⫽ distance from excavation;
E ⫽ Young’s modulus of soil;
Ew ⫽ Young’s modulus of wall;
Eh ⫽ Young’s modulus in horizontal direction;
Ev ⫽ Young’s modulus in vertical direction;
Ev0 / Eh0 ⫽ degree of inherent anisotropy in terms of Young’s
modulus;
Gvh ⫽ shear modulus in vertical plane;
H ⫽ depth of excavation;
h ⫽ average vertical prop spacing of multipropped
support system;
I ⫽ second moment of inertia of wall section;
K0 ⫽ coefficient of earth pressure at rest;
Ks ⫽ stiffness of support system;
k ⫽ prop stiffness;
␥w ⫽ unit weight of water;
␦hm ⫽ maximum lateral wall deflection;
␦v ⫽ ground settlement;
␦vm ⫽ maximum ground settlement;
␴⬘h ⫽ effective stress in horizontal direction;
␴⬘v ⫽ effective stress in vertical direction; and
␾⬘ ⫽ angle of shearing resistance for effective stresses.
References
Addenbrooke, T. I., Potts, D. M., and Dabee, B. 共2000兲. “Displacement
flexibility number for multipropped retaining wall design.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126共8兲, 718–726.
Buildings Department. 共2004兲. “Mass Transit Railway protection railways
ordinance; Mass Transit Railway 共land resumption and related provi-
sions兲 Ordinance; buildings ordinance scheduled area no. 3. Practice
note for authorized persons and registered structural engineers 共PNAP
77兲.” Buildings Department, The Government of the Hong Kong
SAR.
Chan, A. K. C. 共2003兲. “Observations from excavations—A reflection.”
Proc., HKIE Geotechnical Division Annual Seminar 2003, Hong
Kong, 84–101.
Chan, S. Y., Chan, W. K., Chiu, W. K. K., and Hui, W. K. 共1998兲. “Study
of ground deformations due to excavations in Hong Kong.” Final
Year Project, Civil Engineering Dept., The Hong Kong Univ. of Sci-
ence and Technology.
Chu, R. P. K., Yau, P. K. F., Leung, D. H. K., and Mok, K. H. 共2001兲.
“Integrate approach for deep excavation along soft ground 共MTRC兲
tunnels.” Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Soft Soil Engineering, Hong Kong,
142 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143
391–396.
Clough, G. W., and O’Rourke, T. D. 共1990兲. “Construction induced
movements of in situ walls.” Proc., Design and Performance of Earth
Retaining Structures, Geotechnical Special Publication 25, ASCE,
New York, 439–470.
Clough, G. W., Smith, E. M., and Sweeney, B. P. 共1989兲. “Movement
control of excavation support systems by iterative design.” Proc.,
Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, Vol. 2,
ASCE, New York, 869–884.
Davies, R. V., and Henkel, D. J. 共1980兲. “Geotechnical problems associ-
ated with the construction of Chater Station, Hong Kong.” Proc.,
Conf. on Mass Transportation in Asia, Hong Kong, Paper J3, Mass
Transit Railway Corporation, Hong Kong.
Finno, R. J., Atmatzidis, D. K., and Perkins, S. B. 共1989兲. “Observed
performance of a deep excavation in clay.” J. Geotech. Engrg.,
115共8兲, 1045–1064.
Fraser, R. A. 共1992兲. “Mobilisation of stresses in deep excavations: The
use of earth pressure cells at Sheung Wan Crossover.” Proc., Wroth
Memorial Symp., Thomas Telford, London, 279–292.
Fyfe, J. A., Shaw, R., Campbell, S. D. G., Lai, K. W., and Kirk, P. A.
共2000兲. “The quaternary geology of Hong Kong.” Geotechnical Engi-
neering Office, Civil Engineering Dept., The Government of the Hong
Kong SAR.
Geotechnical Control Office 共GCO兲. 共1988兲. “Guide to rock and soil de-
scriptions 共geoguide 3兲.” Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil En-
gineering Dept., The Government of Hong Kong.
Geotechnical Control Office 共GCO兲. 共1990兲. “Review of design methods
for excavations.” GCO Publication No. 1/90.
Geotechnical Engineering Office 共GEO兲. 共1996兲. “Pile design and con-
struction,” GEO Publication 1/96. Geotechnical Engineering Office,
Civil Engineering Dept., Hong Kong Government.
Geotechnical Engineering Office 共GEO兲. 共2002兲. “QRA of collapses and
excessive displacements of deep excavations.” GEO Rep. No. 124.
Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development
Department, The Government of the Hong Kong SAR.
Hsieh, P. G., and Ou, C. Y. 共1998兲. “Shape of ground surface settlement
profiles caused by excavation.” Can. Geotech. J., 35, 1004–1017.
Humpheson, C., Fitzpatrick, A. J., and Anderson, J. M. D. 共1986兲. “The
basement and substructure for the new headquarters of the Hong
Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Hong Kong.” Proc., Insti-
tution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 80, London, 851–883.
Leung, H. Y. 共2005兲. “The anisotropic small strain stiffness of completely
decomposed tuff and its effects on deformations associated with ex-
cavations.” Ph.D. thesis, The Hong Kong Univ. of Science and Tech-
nology, Hong Kong.
Liu, G. B., Ng, C. W. W., and Wang, Z. W. 共2005兲. “Observed perfor-
mance of a deep multi-strutted excavation in Shanghai soft clays.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 131共8兲, 1004–1013.
Lui, J. Y. H., and Yau, P. K. F. 共1995兲. “The performance of the deep
basement for Dragon Centre.” Proc., 1994 Annual Seminar of the
Geotechnical Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineer, In-
strumentation in Geotechnical Engineering, Hong Kong Institution of
Engineers, Hong Kong, 183–201.
Long, M. 共2001兲. “Database for retaining wall and ground movements
due to deep excavations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共3兲,
203–224.
Mana, A. I., and Clough, G. W. 共1981兲. “Prediction of movements for
braced cut in clay.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 107共6兲, 759–777.
Moormann, C. 共2004兲. “Analysis of wall and ground movements due to
deep excavations in soft soil based on a new worldwide database.”
Soils Found., 44共1兲, 87–98.
Morton, K., Leonard, M. S. M., and Cater, R. W. 共1980兲. “Building settle-
ments and ground movements associated with construction of two
stations of the modified initial system of the mass transit railway,
Hong Kong.” Proc., 2nd Conf. on Ground Movements and Struct.,
Univ. of Cardiff, Wales, U.K., 788–802.
Ng, C. W. W. 共1998兲. “Observed performance of multipropped excavation
 in stiff clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 124共9兲, 889–905.
Ng, C. W. W., Pun, W. K., and Pang, R. P. L. 共2000兲. “Small strain
stiffness of natural granitic saprolites in Hong Kong.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 126共9兲, 819–833.
Ng, C. W. W., Rigby, D., Lei, G., and Ng, S. W. L. 共1999兲. “Observed
performance of a short diaphragm wall panel.” Geotechnique, 49共5兲,
681–694.
Ng, C. W. W., and Wang, Y. 共2001兲. “Field and laboratory measurements
of small strain stiffness of decomposed granites.” Soils Found., 41共3兲,
57–71.
Ou, C. Y., Hsieh, P. G., and Chiou, D. C. 共1993兲. “Characteristics of
ground surface settlement during excavation.” Can. Geotech. J., 30,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 02/08/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
758–767.
Pan, J. K. L., Pappin, J. W., Cowan, S., and Lam, L. W. Y. 共2001兲. “An
application of the observational method at Tseung Kwan O Station
and tunnels.” Proc., HKIE Geotechnical Division Annual Seminar
2001, Hong Kong, 61–72.
Peck, R. B. 共1969兲. “Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.
State-of-the-art report.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Founda-
tion Engineering, Mexico, 225–290.
Pickles, A. R., Lee, S. W., and Norcliffe, B. A. W. 共2003兲. “Groundwater
and ground movement around deep excavation.” Proc., Institution of
Civil Engineers, Geotech. Eng., 156 共GE3兲, 147–158.
Pun, W. K., and Ho, K. K. S. 共1996兲. “Analysis of triaxial tests on granitic
saprolite performed at Public Works Central Laboratory.” Discussion
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 143
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(2): 129-143
Note DN 4/96, Geotechnical Engineering Office, The Hong Kong
Government of the Special Administrative Region.
Sewell, R. J., Campbell, S. D. G., Fletcher, C. J. N., Lai, K. W., and
Kirk, P. A. 共2000兲. “The pre-quaternary geology of Hong Kong.”
Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department, The
Government of the Hong Kong SAR.
Stroud, M. A. 共1988兲. “The standard penetration test—Its application and
interpretation.” Geotechnology Conf. on Penetration Testing (UK),
ICE, Oxford, U.K., 29–49.
Sun, Y. F. 共1999兲. “Small strain behaviour of CDG in relation to deep
excavations in Hong Kong.” MPhil thesis, the Hong Kong Univ. of
Science and Technology, Hong Kong.
Terzaghi, K. 共1943兲. Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Wang, Y. 共2000兲. “The characteristics of granitic saprolites at small
strains.” MPhil thesis, the Hong Kong Univ. of Science and Technol-
ogy, Hong Kong.
Wang, Y., and Ng, C. W. W. 共2005兲. “Effects of stress paths on the
small-strain stiffness of completely decomposed granite.” Can. Geo-
tech. J., 42, 1200–1211.
Wang, Z. W., Ng, C. W. W., and Liu, G. B. 共2005兲. “Characteristics of
wall deflections and ground surface settlements in Shanghai.” Can.
Geotech. J., 42共5兲, 1243–1254.
Wong, I. H., Poh, T. Y., and Chuah, H. L. 共1997兲. “Performance of exca-
vations for depressed expressway for Singapore.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 123共7兲, 617–625.
Yoo, C. 共2001兲. “Behavior of braced and anchored walls in soils overly-
ing rock.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共3兲, 225–233.